News Speed of light broken?

Fizyk

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
285
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Warsaw
Website
ebvalaim.mydevil.net
The "new results" have been obtained using the same setup with one little difference (which removes the uncertainty about emission time, but that wasn't really a problem anyway), so if there was a mistake in the previous experiment, it was repeated in the new one. No wonder results are the same, then.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
35,561
Reaction score
76
Points
138
Location
Wolfsburg
The "new results" have been obtained using the same setup with one little difference (which removes the uncertainty about emission time, but that wasn't really a problem anyway), so if there was a mistake in the previous experiment, it was repeated in the new one. No wonder results are the same, then.
Yes, but it had already been established by a study, that known error sources had been dealt with. So, as the results had been repeated by the same experiment, the error is systematic, if it is an error, and could be researched.

As example, that is a better situation as the mess with the Lithium-7 reaction during the Castle Bravo test, when previous data with Lithium-7 experiments resulted in the wrongful assumption that Lithium-7 will not add to the yield of a thermonuclear bomb.

The reaction of Lithium-7 was happening at simply a lower footprint, but had been way more powerful as the intended Lithium-6 reaction, as it did not only produce Tritium as fusion fuel, but also had a higher reactivity as Lithium-6, further increasing the amount of neutrons, instead of absorbing them. With the added fusion reactions because there had been more Tritium produced, there had been such a high neutron flux that the depleted Uranium shell to contain the reaction did also become fissile and contributed much stronger to the explosion (instead of simply being blown away by the explosion before it can really react)

Resulted in approximately three times higher yield then, as planned, and much stronger fallout (since the Uranium was also used much more efficient as planned).

Which not just caused the destruction of a complete Island, the contamination of a Japanese fishing boat outside the restricted zone and fall-out to previously considered safe islands, but also it destroyed the bunker that was build to record telemetry of the explosion, making it a scientific riddle to tell, what went wrong. The fallout on the Japanese ship was the key to the question then.

What does that teach us: Experiments are only valid within their limits.
 

Astronut25

New member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
102
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Out there
Question About an Idea of Mine

I'm definitely skeptical about this FTL Neutrino, but, like the guy on Sixty Symbols, doesn't mean I wont try to think of some solution.

[Idea]
Gravity causes a distortion in space-time that all matter is bound to, but since the Neutrino is a WIMP, could it be possible for it to not be affected by this distortion.

Its like if a Photon could be described as a car, driving from point a to point b, with depressions in the terrain (gravity), which would increase the travel distance. the Neutrino is a plane, though can only fly as fast as the car over level terrain, is unaffected by the valleys, and flies a shorter distance as a result. making it arrive slightly earlier.
[/Idea]

the speed of light and the speed of the neutrinos would be the same in level space-time, but as the two particle streams approach a gravity well, they would begin to diverge.

I would like to hear your opinions (like if there's a major flaw in the logic or not, and a description for why)
 

xlns

New member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Until independent measure confirms this, I'm on skeptic side - it reminds me of a situation in particle physics; conservation of electric charge is much less experimentally proven than conservation of baryon number. Nonetheless, bunch of people are on the hunt for baryon violation and virtually none is after charge violation, because behind charge conservation lyes gauge symmetry, a powerful and beautiful principle. Nothing alikes backs up baryon conservation. Similarly, behind relativity there are powerful and deep principles which feel right. Ofcourse, if this gets confirmed, those has to go to remount, but still ...

I'd bet a few beers that this story ends up unconfirmed and wrong.
:cheers:
 

Jarvitä

New member
Joined
Aug 5, 2008
Messages
2,030
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Serface, Earth
behind relativity there are powerful and deep principles which feel right. Ofcourse, if this gets confirmed, those has to go to remount, but still ...

I'd bet a few beers that this story ends up unconfirmed and wrong.
:cheers:
Just like time being independent and invariable was a powerful and deep principle which felt right, before Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein came along and discovered special relativity. I won't buy any argument that depends on something FEELING "right", "powerful", "deep" or "elegant". That way lies religious thinking.
 
Last edited:

xlns

New member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Just like time being independent and invariable was a powerful and deep principle which felt right, before Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein came along and discovered special relativity. I won't buy any argument that depends on something FEELING "right", "powerful", "deep" or "elegant". That way lies religious thinking.
No one ever called Newtonian time independence of space a deep and powerful principle and I challenge you to prove me wrong. Composition of configuration space is just postulated.

Furthermore, I absolutely decline your assertions, as if anything humane contaminates pure science. Like it or not, all those terms you quote as hideous to a "real" scientist are regularly used by the greatest of mathematicians and physicist to describe exactly the feelings by which they were led in their research. By a hilarious chance, the very people you name, especially Poincaret and Einstein were among those people who believed their instinct and feelings, the sense of deep, powerful and especially the sense of aesthetically pleasing threads of thought. And if you don't believe me, and I guess you won't, I'd strongly suggest you to read "Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field" by J. Hadamard, mathematician who describes mathematical thinking, psychological states that lead to bursts of deep insight that are accompanied by intense emotions, maybe are even alike to religious experiences. But I can't confirm on that, never had any religious enlightenment. Among people whose experience he describes are Carl Friedrich Gauss, Hermann von Helmholtz and Henri Poincaré to name a few. And, may I remind you that Srinivasa Ramanujan always told that all the astonishing contributions to mathematics he delivered were actually gifts from goddess Namagiri.
Now, don't get me wrong. Paths of dry logic will always lead you to the right answer, no doubt about that. But if one has the luck to possess the gift all the men named above certainly had, there are royal paths to right answer. And to travel those, you need to embrace your human side, not to ignore it as if it's only a remnant of animal ancestry.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jarvitä

New member
Joined
Aug 5, 2008
Messages
2,030
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Serface, Earth
No one ever called Newtonian time independence of space a deep and powerful principle and I challenge you to prove me wrong.
Amongst the more prominent critics, Tesla and Mohorovičić spring to mind for having criticised special relativity precisely on the grounds of subject-relative time being "against common sense". Also, the anti-Semitic regime in Germany which derided theoretical physicists for solving "non-existent problems".

all those terms you quote as hideous to a "real" scientist are regularly used by the greatest of mathematicians and physicist to describe exactly the feelings by which they were led in their research.
Yes, they were led in the right direction, that isn't disputed. But instinct and a gut feeling didn't lead to the finished work, education, innovation and lots of hard work did. An irrational source of motivation alone can't replace that.

And, may I remind you that Srinivasa Ramanujan always told that all the astonishing contributions to mathematics he delivered were actually gifts from goddess Namagiri.
I don't dispute the fact that many great discoveries were made by incredibly smart people who unfortunately failed to apply rationality to other parts of their lives. And, since you obviously care about that, I should inform you that this revelation hasn't affected me on an emotional level.

Now, don't get me wrong. Paths of dry logic will always lead you to the right answer, no doubt about that. But if one has the luck to possess the gift all the men named above certainly had, there are royal paths to right answer. And to travel those, you need to embrace your human side, not to ignore it as if it's only a remnant of animal ancestry.
The capability to perform "dry logic" on the level we do is what separates us from other animals. You've used it right here to put forward an unconvincing and insufficient argument as to why we shouldn't.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cras

Spring of Life!
Donator
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
2,215
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Los Angeles
Website
www.youtube.com
Apply feeling, and common sense and perception to modern theoretical physics and you will be horribly lost.

It led Einstein astray when he flat out could not accept the idea that the universe was not eternal nor static. Thus he stuck in his Cosmological Constant and later had to recant after Hubble proved that indeed the Universe is expanding.

Of course you can draw a line from Cosmological Constant to the modern idea of the negative pressure field permeating space that creates the repulsive gravity which is causing the universe's expansion to increase, but its purpose and its magnitude are vastly different, not to mention we now have an actual mechanism to manifest a negative pressure Cosmo constant.

But I see this result to have two likely repercussions here. One is that the result of matter going faster than C is totally and irrefutably debunked and Special Relativity reigns supreme.

Or the result is confirmed, and we have a possible tool to further probe spacetime, get some answers to the quantum state of spacetime, what spacetime actually is, why it manifests itself in the manner it does, why only four dimensions are experienced at the commonplace scales of distance, why time has an arrow, and perhaps other avenues such as Braneworld theory or the hologram reality.
 

T.Neo

SA 2010 Soccermaniac
Addon Developer
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
6,377
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Apply feeling, and common sense and perception to modern theoretical physics and you will be horribly lost.
Unless your 'feeling' and 'common sense' and perception are based around modern theoretical physics.

Concepts such as time dilation or relativistic mass increase are completely alien to a lot of people and simply do not make sense in the realm of immediate human experience. But if you are well enough versed in the field of relativity, they are simply second nature.

(Mind you, I'm not actually suggesting that scientific conclusions should be decided on based on "feeling", just saying that it is unavoidable and should not be shunned.)
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
35,561
Reaction score
76
Points
138
Location
Wolfsburg
Maybe Neutrinos simply don't give a damn about the other particles and their stupid rules. Speed limits are for hadrons. Free way for free WIMPs.
 

Jarvitä

New member
Joined
Aug 5, 2008
Messages
2,030
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Serface, Earth
Unless your 'feeling' and 'common sense' and perception are based around modern theoretical physics.
Well, if it's just rational probabilistic extrapolation from existing beliefs and thought processes, you can't really call it a "gut feeling" or "divine inspiration", can you?
 

Ghostrider

Donator
Donator
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
3,608
Reaction score
2
Points
63
Location
Right behind you - don't look!
I don't dispute the fact that many great discoveries were made by incredibly smart people who unfortunately failed to apply rationality to other parts of their lives. And, since you obviously care about that, I should inform you that this revelation hasn't affected me on an emotional level.
Show us your magnificent discoveries and inventions, you Homo Superior.:lol:
 

xlns

New member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Amongst the more prominent critics, Tesla and Mohorovičić spring to mind for having criticised special relativity precisely on the grounds of subject-relative time being "against common sense". Also, the anti-Semitic regime in Germany which derided theoretical physicists for solving "non-existent problems".
An extrapolation from lifetime experience of perception of 1.5eV range, meters sized objects and g accelerations (a.k.a. common sense) can not be valid argument against phenomena on TeV scale radiation, femtometer setting and extreme space-time curvations. No matter how great authorities were the two of my countrymen you mention.

As for Nazi Germany, there was "aryan" science, namely focus was on engineering and chemistry which stand in contrast with judenwissenschaft that thought of abstract, "useless" sciences. I find it ironic that exactly E=mc^2 in the most horrific way took part of Axis defeat.

Yes, they were led in the right direction, that isn't disputed. But instinct and a gut feeling didn't lead to the finished work, education, innovation and lots of hard work did. An irrational source of motivation alone can't replace that.
Who claimed it does? I though that point of dispute is whether sense of profound feelings that are experienced by a consensus of workers in the field about certain principles should be considered as valid guide in science, not to compare importances of initial break-through and hard work follow-up.

Two things are in contest here: Einstein's principle of ultimate speed and years of dedicated work by good folks at Opera and CERN. They did experimentation and found what they found. They recheck much of their experiment, exorcised a lot of systematic errors and the anomaly still stands. On the other hand, there is a law proposed by a dead guy. No one is personally attached to the axiom, but scientific community will probably spend millions of dollars to recheck rather than simply discard the c as ultimate speed. Why do you think that is?*

I recall my example with charge/baryon conservation. Particle physics is a multibillion research today. Experimental limits are much looser on charge non-conservation than on baryon non-conservation . Testing one or the other is about same expensive. Baryon non-conservation is active field of research. Discoverer of electric charge non-conservation would earn immortality in physics. BUT - no one, and I mean none, in physics is spending their time and money on charge non-conversation research today. Why do you think that is?*

I don't dispute the fact that many great discoveries were made by incredibly smart people who unfortunately failed to apply rationality to other parts of their lives. And, since you obviously care about that, I should inform you that this revelation hasn't affected me on an emotional level.
It was meant as harmless poking fun. Nothing personal, sorry you I offended you.

The capability to perform "dry logic" on the level we do is what separates us from other animals. You've used it right here to put forward an unconvincing and insufficient argument as to why we shouldn't.
Where exactly did I claim we should not use logic? As a professional physicist, I am paid for my knowledge and use of logic, thank you for asking. What I claimed and still stand by it is that there a number of principles in physics that posses a transcendent quality that are hard to reproduce in spoken language. The same qualities attracted their discoverers to recognize their immense value, a task that could not be done by Spock of Vulcan. And sense for such things provide us with guidance in our great adventure of science.



(*) (Axiom of STR)/(Principle of local gauge invariance) is elegant and deep principle.
 

Jarvitä

New member
Joined
Aug 5, 2008
Messages
2,030
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Serface, Earth
An extrapolation from lifetime experience of perception of 1.5eV range, meters sized objects and g accelerations (a.k.a. common sense) can not be valid argument against phenomena on TeV scale radiation, femtometer setting and extreme space-time curvations. No matter how great authorities were the two of my countrymen you mention.
I'm not saying their intuition was correct. I simply stated that the opinion existed, contrary to your claims.

No one ever called Newtonian time independence of space a deep and powerful principle and I challenge you to prove me wrong. Composition of configuration space is just postulated.
Show us your magnificent discoveries and inventions, you Homo Superior.
I'm working on my B.Sc dissertation, just trivial engineering so far. I'd like to think my achievements are still to come.
 
Last edited:

T.Neo

SA 2010 Soccermaniac
Addon Developer
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
6,377
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Well, if it's just rational probabilistic extrapolation from existing beliefs and thought processes, you can't really call it a "gut feeling" or "divine inspiration", can you?
Sorry? I think you are just talking in technobabble, because you don't like terms such as "gut feeling"...
 

Ghostrider

Donator
Donator
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
3,608
Reaction score
2
Points
63
Location
Right behind you - don't look!
I'm working on my B.Sc dissertation, just trivial engineering so far. I'd like to think my achievements are still to come.
And yet you think you can criticize people whose achievements are recorded history.

Maybe when you have tasted life a little you'll learn about a thing called "humility". Path to greatness, you know. And also that the beautiful thing about being human is the duality reason/feeling and the eternal struggle between them. Life devoted to raw emotion is brutality, life devoted to raw reason is inhumane.

It's good to be on the Swing all the time. Swing is groovy.
 

Cras

Spring of Life!
Donator
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
2,215
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Los Angeles
Website
www.youtube.com
Sorry? I think you are just talking in technobabble, because you don't like terms such as "gut feeling"...
Let us be fair with the term "Gut Feeling". It does have its place in science, and in particular in physics. The math for instance can lead to some horrible conclusions with respect to what constitutes "now" and the "past", and I would bet pretty much every one would find these conclusions to be a totally unacceptable view of the universe, and this leads us to continue the quest to answer such questions.

But there is also the case that gut feeling, where someone sees a result being unacceptable, that can then lead the researcher astray.

But talking about inspiration, where the ideas come from are irrelevant. Where the idea comes from does not play a role in if the idea is a good one or not.

When it comes to explaining the Universe at the moment fundamental level, I don't care what anyone's gut says or what inspiration has told them. If someone has an idea, I want to see proof that it can represent the Universe we inhabit. And such proof is of such a heavy burden, it makes a lot of people uneasy in describing them in terms such as "gut-feeling".
 

Ghostrider

Donator
Donator
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
3,608
Reaction score
2
Points
63
Location
Right behind you - don't look!
"Gut feeling" has its own place within my trade as well, but of course I'd never take it to court or anywhere. Unless I have evidence, I tend to keep my gut feelings where they belong - in my gut.

Of course I have to deal (mostly) with human causes, and humans do stuff that other humans can "pick up" - not with any fifth-and-three-quarter-sense or anything like that, but because humans usually understand other humans quite well, and up to a limit (usually determined by mental pathologies) we can see through another person's motivations and mind processes.

The Universe, however, it's a different beast. "Gut feeling" is good when it tells us something is off our scales, and maybe we should check, recheck and check again our equipment. In the end, the raw data should not lie. Witnesses can lie or forget, but pictures do not. OK, until Photoshop came along at least...
 

Jarvitä

New member
Joined
Aug 5, 2008
Messages
2,030
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Serface, Earth
Sorry? I think you are just talking in technobabble, because you don't like terms such as "gut feeling"...
Let me put it this way, the last time anyone had a "gut feeling" was after eating too many cans of beans.

You don't process thoughts with your gut, just like you don't feel emotion with your heart. Any thought pattern, no matter how aware of it you are, is a result of your existing beliefs and knowledge. There's nothing mysterious about generating new insight without full awareness of the process. I just don't like it when people attribute achievements of their own human intellect to random chance or supernatural intervention.
 
Top